If liberals are ok with people having guns, why then is it nearly impossible...

Everyone ? Seriously ?
Being a liberal means you accept that your rights are not absolute and not everyone can carry any weapon anywhere they want.

 

Meaning that there are locations in the united states where an individual is legally required to allow themselves to be made victims of violent crime, correct? If they are met with the threat of violence, the law requires them to allow the violence to transpire, correct?

 

I don't need to move. I live in a State that allows Constitutional carry. If disarmed liberals suffer in liberal States well too bad, so sad.

 

I happen to live in a very liberal state and had no issue getting a concealed carry license.

 

Wow...

 

Which State?

 

MA

 

Seeing as the united state supreme court has ruled the second amendment is connected to the constitutional right of self defense, it is a valid question. Are there any locations in the united states where an individual is legally required to allow themselves to be physically harmed?

 

Irrelevant.

 

Wow.

 

Very stupid answer, do you not care about other peoples lives?

 

Is that straight from the NRA ? Before or after their convicted felon president stepped down. You know you’re bad when a felon can’t stand your positions.

 

Prove the validity of the statement being made on the part of yourself.

 

One more meaningless response of such, and the posts will be reported for adding nothing of relevance to the discussion.

 

Quite false, by and large the police are very lightly trained in the use of firearms, this is one of many reasons when in a gunfight they miss their targets with over 80% of the shots they fire, and quite often putting innocents in grave danger at the same time.

Just a few months back in South Florida three jurisdictions who where pursuing a UPS truck got it boxed in and a gunfight began, in the end the UPS driver and three other innocents where shot, the UPS driver was killed.

 

So...you must be in favor of nationwide Constitutional carry, then?

At a guess, because the Secret Service demands it.

 

Translation: "Being unable to actually refute anything, I will not attempt to distract."

Are you attempting to stumble upon a POINT?

 

In most case's the venue requires it, the NRA has run into this many times when booking events.

 

Yes, I understand that...but he specifically mentioned the RNC. As I recall, both party conventions have security by the Secret Service, because there are presidential candidates (and usually, serving and/or former Presidents) at one or both conventions. (They essentially shut down most of Boston for a week in 2004.)

 

Understood.

 

You can’t even say the word “absolute.” It’s your defined limit. Can’t go there cause “ absolute” makes all your bogus 2a assumptions worthless.

 

So...five-dollar words, but still no point. Keep flailing.

 

Be nice, he's doing his best.

 

I find it hilarious that many of today's dems/libs won't admit that they are either of the two.

 

Ain't that the truth, I have a couple of associates who I know are liberals, but when they are around me they try their best to as conservative as possible, strange, I'm not modifying my beliefs to suit, them but they will modify theirs to suit me.